Describe the evaluation 1. Who were Stakeholders? 2. Who conducted the evaluation? 3. What kind of evaluation was it (input, process, outcome, impact)? 4. What research design was used? 5. Who was the sample? 6. What types of data were collected? 7. How did they analyze the data? 8. What did they find?
Evaluation of the Healthy Village Program in Kapit District, Sarawak, Malaysia
The program: What were the programs goals and strategy?
Goals: Broaden traditional health activities; encourage inter-sectoral collaboration; more health screening especially non-communicable diseases, accidents and injuries, environmental hygiene and communicable disease.
Activities: Food preparation, fire safety, smoking (must go outdoors, no smoking signs, fines, encourage exercise, well-person clinics, self-exam and other screening; adequate ventilation and other fire prevention measure; rubbish disposal; education on safe food handling, remove stray animals;
Describe the evaluation 1. Who were Stakeholders? Kapit Health Office, WHO, villages, village leaders 2. Who conducted the evaluation? University of Sydney, University of Queensland, Kapit Division of Health, WHO 3. What kind of evaluation was it (input, process, outcome, impact)? Outcome 4. What research design was used? One shot case study Collected retrospective data; no baseline data Concerns about Selection bias study conducted 2 years after program started
5. Sample March/April 2003 12 longhouses in Kapit district 10 study longhouses and 2 comparison ~ 20 interview/village subjects chosen because spoke English and/or availability 1 Focus group/village; authorities, ~8 subjects, interview guide observation to confirm other information 6. What types of data were collected? participant observation and key informant interviews interview checklist semi-structured 7. How did they analyze the data? narrative description (no tables, quotes, etc) 8. What did they find 5/10 completed some changes in all program areas Descriptive data on program elements additional findings: partnerships,
Evaluation of the School Supplementary Feeding Program in Peninsular Malaysia
Describe the program (goals and activities) improve health and nutritional status of children 1. prevent malnutrition 2. education children on food selection 3. encourage parent, teachers, and public participation 4. strength health and nutrition programs in schools
Objectives of the study: a. To evaluate the financial management and budget disbursement of SSFP b. To evaluate the management of food preparation in SSFP c. To observe the types and acceptance of the food served to supplemented school children d. To evaluate the nutrient content of food served
Describe the evaluation 1. Who were Stakeholders? 2. Who conducted the evaluation? 3 universities 3. What kind of evaluation was it? implementation (inputs, process, some outcome) 4. What research design was used? cross-sectional 5. Who was the sample? 129 schools (participation rate, urban/rural) matched samples, parents 6. What types of data were collected? questionnaires to parents, staff, interview administrators, nutritional content 7. How did they analyze the data? descriptive data tables
What did they find: Problems a. Delay in receiving budget has led to loss of interest in food preparation by the food operators. b. Food is sometimes prepared and portioned out too early, resulting in cold food being served. c. An inferiority feeling is experienced by some children as this program is meant for poor children. d. Unsatisfactory water supply and insufficient basic facilities in some schools, made preparation difficult. e. Teachers involved in managing the program experienced increased work load.
Recommendations a. Need to revise the income criteria as the current income level of RM150 is no longer applicable. b. The allocated budget per child needs to be revised in tandem with price increase of ingredients. c. Budget should be received so the program can start off at the beginning of the term. d. The SSFP should be given to all children for schools with a total population of 150 students and below. e. Schools should be given freedom to modify menus if necessary to enhance food acceptance.
Preliminary Evaluation of the STRIDE Program Describe the program (goals and activities) Preventive drug education program
Enhance interpersonal skills and develop resilience of students through physical and health education curriculum
12 lectures, physical activities, role playing New curriculum for 3 months + 3-day camp
Describe the evaluation 1. Who were Stakeholders? Ministry of Education National Narcotics Agency Institute for Medical Research Police Department 2. Who conducted the evaluation? Universities plus Ministry 3. What kind of evaluation was it? Outcome knowledge (not actual use) 4. What research design was used? pre-post (before/after) 5. Who was the sample? 9 schools from 3 states (purposive; high prevalence) stratified cluster random sampling (random classes) N= 301 students (75% matched at post-test) 6. What types of data were collected? pretested questionnaires 15 objective dichotomous questions 7. How did they analyze the data? SPSS and statistical tests 8. What did they find? Mostly positive Some surprising negative impacts Inconsistent qualifications of trainers Problem with timing during school day
Evaluation in Malaysia Malaysian Evaluation Society http://mes.org.my/home/
Briefing on Performance Management and Program Evaluation in the Malaysian Government http://www.agc.gov.my/pdf/pekeliling/pelbag ai/Performance_Management.pdf